zdrifter

Inquiring minds want to know (at least mine does ) .. what is your current Max HR. Hope to develop some kind of a curve of the distribution and will post results in that form ... and yeah I know many people may guess/exaggerate/etc. which will mean a less than exact result, but better than 'nuttin ...

Cheers

chinarider

I assume all who vote will be 50 or above, but it might be nice to get ages too so the MHR can be plotted against age. FWIW, I'm 57 with a MHR around 198.

Dan

DnvrFox

and the purpose of the proposed graph is???

MHR is a variable dependent on genetics, age, fitness (at least some vidence shows this), and is specific sport dependent, and changes with drugs you might be taking and other factors.

It has little or no relevancy to performance, and is useful primarily as a training aid, but id not as good as lactic threshhold..

zdrifter

DnvrFox

Purpose is nothing more than curiosity as in "inquiring minds blah blahh" .. would guess many are wondering if the 'usual' (not very good) formula (220 - age) applies in the bicycling community .. but yeah, just wonderin' .. thanks for asking!

Cheers

jdon

50 y.o. 186 max

Prolene

56 years. 198 bpm.

I just reviewed Garmin data of a ride 9/26/09 into the wind. Starting at 163 bpm at 55:07 at 17 mph. Ramped up to 195 bpm at 56:33 at 22 mph (fairly strong headwind). Then 198 bpm at 57:02 at 21 mph.

Many of my rides are max 180s with some into low 190s.

Hermes

IMHO, the following metrics are important if one is interested in monitoring and or improving cycling performance:

Lactate Threshold Power and Heart Rate - maximum sustainable for 60 minutes

VO2 Max Power and Heart Rate - maximum sustainable for 3 to 5 minutes

Anaerobic Power and Heart rate - maximum sustainable for 30 seconds

Maximum heart rate is an interesting number but of no relevance and may increase over time as one gets more fit. I seem to set new max heart rates when...I am warmed up, there is significant adrenaline (start of a race), the course goes up hill after the start and there is competition.

The more fit I become the more difficult it is to achieve high heart rates.

cyclinfool

+1 on that - and I thought it was just me.

These are useful measurements but as DF said - your mileage WILL vary.

Since there are a lot of other factors, your plot may not be so interesting and your sample size may not be large enough to even have a good estimate of the mean.

bikerkim

i just turned 56. for training purposes, i consider my max HR 200, but i regularly hit in the 205-209 range. it's just easier to figure zones with % of 200. but for the last couple years, i've been using a powertap, so HR is just another bunch of numbers.

i have always thought that 220-age crap is fine if you have serious cardiac issues or really aren't serious about your fitness on a regular basis. i also have always felt that the notion of "maximum heart rate decline with age" is fine, IF you are at your maximum level of fitness and performance. otherwise, your fitness level and performance will continue to increase, and negate or offset the affect of another year's aging.
but those are just my thoughts and armchair theories. but i do continue to hit 200+, so that's fine with me.

chinarider

It's relevant if you're going to base training zones off of it. I agree the raw number doesn't tell you anything about fitness or ability.

chinarider

It's crap for anyone (unless you happen to be one of the the few for whom it happens to be accurate).

VROD

With my past life style and at 57 years old I am just glad the old ticker still works.I don't measure heart rate,cadence or mph.I do check mileage with the computer or on another vehicle maybe I am not serious enough but I am having fun and thats why I ride.

John E

I checked the 160-169 bin, but I can barely hit 160 with great difficulty, so perhaps I should have checked 150-159. Interestingly, 220 - [my age] = 161 (!)

It might be more meaningful to examine max rate with respect to resting rate -- mine is about 45.

chinarider

I don't think there is any connection or correlation between the two. MHR is an innate number (tho it takes motivation and a willingness to endure pain to reach it, so those who are unfit and not used to training may believe they can't go anymore when they haven't reached true max-- one of the problems with the original studies (among many others) that led to the 220-age "formula"). Resting rate does respond to training and is an indication of fitness.

longbeachgary

Good question is how are you determining what your maximum heart rate is?

Hermes

But it has no relevance for basing training zones. Lactate threshold is the benchmark for determining heart rate or power training zones. If your max heart rate is 190 and your real LT 155, what is the relevance of the 190 and how would you use it to base training zones?

chinarider

I agree using LTHR for zones is better than MHR, but many training systems do use MHR to determine training intensity. If you're going to use one of those, you need an accurate fix for MHR.

chinarider

A maximal test either in a controlled setting (such as a physiology lab) or a field test (after a good warm up ride as hard as you can on some hill repeats till you're going to puke). Seriously, if you do a search, there are a number of protocols for testing MHR. Or you can extrapolate from a sub-maximal test. There are protocols for this too. But this really involves testing Lactate Threshold HR, and as Hermes points out, if you know your LTHR you're better off basing zones off of that.

Allegheny Jet

Age 56
Estimated MHR - 172
Resting HR - 48
HR Reserve - 124
Friel's HR Zones:
Z2 = 126-137
Z3 =138-145
Z4=146-156
Z5= 157 and above.

LTHR varies, currently around 155 based on road racing, interval training and 45 minute cyclo cross races. It was higher in July at the peak of my road racing season.

My coach sets my workouts using HR zone training and it has worked very well. My estimated Maximum HR is based on riding up a 1 mile long hill, after a good warm-up and light workout, and working up through the HR Zones to reach Z5 about 1/4 mile before the top. At 1/4 mile to go I was to begin to push harder and harder until there was no gas left in the tank what so ever. At that point I was to get out of the saddle and sprint until my legs wouldn't turn any more. We took that value and added 4 BPM and that is my estimated max. Warning, doing that test really, really hurts! You know your are there when completing the interval the urge to puke and mess your shorts is about 50/50.

will dehne

I am following this thread to learn something perhaps.
I do not know what my MHR is.
But I am nervous and jerky not to exceed it because I have seen someone drop dead from that and another guy was hospitalized. I am soon 68 and sort of go by that formulae 220-age. I have reached over 160 and I think caffeine had something to do with that. It was two packs of GU Gel with 2X caffeine plus a big sprint racing some guy.
My resting HR is 50 to 60 and normal exercise at 100 to 120. A hard sprint gets me 150 and up where I get concerned.
BTW, I feel light headed and jerky if I go up to 160. My instincts tell me to cool it. I always bike with a HRM in front of my nose on the bike.

chinarider

As indicated above, there are sub-maximal tests to estimate MHR and LTHR. But if you're feeling light headed and "jerky" (no sure what that means) from exertion, I'd consult with a good Dr. (preferably a cardiologist) familiar with these issues. Light headedness could be a sign of a blockage. But do not see some obese doc who has no clue about exercise. He/she will probably just use 220-age and tell you to take it easy. The problem with trying to use 220-age to be "safe" is that you may be one of those whose MHR falls on the low end of the bell curve. In that case, using 220-age will have you pushing too hard. Given your symptoms, that could be dangerous.

will dehne

Thanks for the warning.
My problem is finding a Competent Sports Doctor. The doctors I have seen follow your comment of Obese, Smoking and no idea of healthy living. However, I will try again. Perhaps there is a good one in this town with three major Hospitals.
My comment of jerky was an attempt to describe a hyper active feeling. High strung would be another description.

stapfam

That "Scorned" system of 220- age is a good basis to start from when no other system is available. Works true for me and was verified by the stress test done by the hospital after a few problems.

But Max HR is not reached by me- not checked by me and if I ever did reach it now- I probably wouldn't finish the distance rides that I do.

Road Fan

Not sure there's any point to just plotting frequency of occurence of MHR values, while I could see plotting it against age. There's quite a wide range of ages in here. My MHR is at least 182, and my age is 56. I say "at least" because I've never had an MHR test, but I did see that value when I had a LTHR test.

chinarider

NO,NO,NO (sorry for shouting, but this is a pet peeve of mine). If it worked for you, it is a pure coincidence. At best, the 220-age "formula" is an average. Assuming it is an accurate average (which is subject to doubt), there are many people it doesn't work for. It's like saying the average male is 5' 10", you're a male, so you must be 5'10". You may be 5"10" but that doesn't mean all other males are. It is not a good basis to start from. If you are on the hi end of the bell curve, you will be under training if you base your training on the "formula." Worse, if you are on the low side, following the "formula " could result in dangerous over training and pushing yourself too hard. For more on the genesis of and problems with the 220-age "formula" see: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/he...ea9017&ei=5070 (you have to register with the NYT to read, but it's free and well Worth it.).

Dan